Imperialism And Resistance

By Eva Golinger

Caracas, July 24, 2010 – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez denounced this Saturday US plans to attack his country and overthrow his government. During a ceremony celebrating the 227th birthday of Independence hero Simon Bolivar, Chavez read from a secret memo he had been sent from an unnamed source inside the United States.

“Old friend, I haven’t seen you in years. As I said to you in my three prior letters, the idea remains the generation of a conflict on your western border”, read Chavez from the secret missive.

“The latest events confirm all, or almost all, of what those here discussed as well as other information that I have obtained from above”, the letter continued.

“The preparation phase in the international community, with the help of Colombia, is in plain execution”, manifested the text, referring to last Thursday’s session in the Organization of American States (OAS), during which the Colombia government accused Venezuela of harboring “terrorists” and “terrorist training camps” and gave the Chavez government a “30-day ultimatum” to allow for international intervention.

The letter continued with more details, “I told you before that the events wouldn’t begin before the 26th, but for some reason they have moved forward several actions that were supposed to be executed afterward”.

“In the United States, the execution phase is accelerating, together with a contention force, as they call it, towards Costa Rica with the pretext of fighting drug trafficking”.

On July 1, the Costan Rican government authorized 46 US war ships and 7,000 marines into their maritime and land territory.
The true objective of this military mobilization, said the letter, is to “support military operations” against Venezuela.

ASSASSINATION AND OVERTHROW

“There is an agreement between Colombia and the US with two objectives: one is Mauricio and the other is the overthrow of the government”, revealed the document. President Chavez explained that “Mauricio” is a pseudynom used in these communications.

“The military operation is going to happen”, warned the text, “and those from the north will do it, but not directly in Caracas”.
“They will hunt ‘Mauricio’ down outside Caracas, this is very important, I repeat, this is very important”.

President Chavez revealed that he had received similar letters from the same source alerting him to dangerous threats. He received one right before the capture of more than 100 Colombian paramilitaries in the outskirts of Caracas that were part of an assassination plan against the Venezuelan head of state, and another in 2002, just days before the coup d’etat that briefly outsted him from power. “The letter warned of snipers and the coup”, explained Chavez, “and it was right, the information was true, but we were unable to act to prevent it”.

US MILITARY EXPANSION

This information comes on the heels of the decision last Thursday to break relations between Colombia and Venezuela, made by President Chavez after Colombia’s “show” in the OAS.

“Uribe is capable of anything”, warned Chavez, announcing that the country was on maximum altert and the borders were being reinforced.

Last October, Colombia and the US signed a military agreement permitting the US to occupy seven Colombian bases and to use all Colombian territory as needed to complete missions. One of the bases in the agreement, Palanquero, was cited in May 2009 US Air Force documents as necessary to “conduct full spectrum military operations” in South America and combat the threat of “anti-US governments” in the region.

Palanquero was also signaled as critical to the Pentagon’s Global Mobility Strategy, as outlined in the February 2009 White Paper: Air Mobility Command Global En Route Strategy, “USSOUTHCOM has identified Palanquero, Colombia (German Olano Airfield SKPQ), as a cooperative security location (CSL). From this location nearly half of the continent can be covered by a C-17 without refueling”.

The 2010 Pentagon budget included a $46 million USD request to improve the installations at Palanquero, in order to support the Command Combatant’s “Theater Posture Strategy” and “provide for a unique opportunity for full spectrum operations in a critical sub region of our hemisphere where security and stability is under constant threat from narcotics funded terrorist insurgencies, anti-US governments, endemic poverty and recurring natural disasters”.

The May 2009 Air Force document further added that Palanquero would be used to “increase our capacity to conduct Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), improve global reach…and expand expeditionary warfare capability”.

In February 2010, the US National Directorate of Intelligence (NDI) classified Venezuela as “Anti-US Leader” in the region in its annual threat assessment.

The US also maintains forward operation locations (small military bases) in Aruba and Curazao, just miles off the Venezuelan coast. In recent months, the Venezuelan government has denounced unauthorized incursions of drone planes and other military aircraft into Venezuelan territory, originating from the US bases.

These latest revelations evidence that a serious, and unjustified conflict is brewing fast against Venezuela, a country with a vibrant democracy and the largest oil reserves in the world.

via Eva Golinger

“For the dignity of Venezuela”

Venezuela and Colombia break relations

President Chavez ordered maximum alert on Venezuela’s border with Colombia after the Uribe administration made grave accusations against Venezuela claiming the Chavez government harbors terrorists and terrorist training camps

The outgoing government of Alvaro Uribe in Colombia gave a shameful presentation before member states of the Organization of American States (OAS) on Thursday, reminiscent of Colin Powell’s “weapons of mass destruction” power point evidence presented in 2003 before the United Nations Security Council to justify the war in Iraq.

Colombia alleged that Venezuela is harboring “terrorists” from the Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN) and hosting several “terrorist training camps” near the border region that divides the two nations.

During an extraordinary session convened at OAS headquarters in Washington on Thursday, upon request of the Uribe government, Colombia’s ambassador to the OAS, Luis Alfonso Hoyos, presented television and video images allegedly taken from computers confiscated during the illegal invasion of Ecuatorian territory on March 1, 2008, which resulted in the death of FARC leader Raul Reyes and a dozen other Colombian, Ecuatorian and Mexican citizens. Hoyos also presented several computer-generated maps and photographs of alleged members of the FARC, which he said were taken inside Venezuela.

NO REAL PROOF

Yet none of the images were authenticated or verified as reliable by any source other than the Colombian government. Colombia also used satellite map images, some from Google Earth, to show alleged “coordinates” where FARC members are in Venezuela.

Furthermore, the photographs presented by Hoyos had no source identification, dates or times, and merely showed alleged members of the FARC and ELN in different jungle and coastal areas.

Venezuela and Colombia share a porous, jungle and mountainous border and both countries have Caribbean coasts. The countries have similar vegetations, climates and scenery.

Venezuela’s ambassador to the OAS, Roy Chaderton said the photographs looked to him as though they had been taken in Colombia. “That looks like the beach in Santa Marta to me”, responded Chaderton, after Hoyos claimed a photo of a FARC member drinking a beer on the beach was taken at Chichirivichi, a Venezuelan beach town.

“There is no evidence, not a single piece of proof, of where those photographs were taken”, said Chaderton, adding that the “evidence” presented by Colombia was “confusing, imprecise and non-convincing”.

The Venezuelan army verified and thoroughly inspected the locations and coordinates provided by the Uribe administration on Thursday and found none of the alleged “terrorist sites”, “camps” or “guerrilla presence” claimed by Colombia.

Upon arriving at the first coordinate indicated in Colombia’s report, identified as an alleged terrorist camp of alias Ruben Zamora, the Venezuelan army found a farm growing plantains, yucca and corn. The second coordinate, which was the alleged camp of FARC commander Ivan Marquez, was merely an extensive field with no structures or presence of anyone or anything.

INTERNATIONAL INTERVENTION

During his two-hour long flamboyant presentation, Hoyos called for “international intervention” in Venezuela to verify the campsites and gave Venezuela a “30-day ultimatum”.

“Colombia requests a commission of international members, including all those of the OAS, go to Venezuela and verify each of the terrorist camp sites and coordinates to see the truth”, said Hoyos, adding, “we give the Venezuelan government 30 days”, although he didn’t specify what could happen afterward.

Hoyos also accused the Venezuelan government of facilitating drug trafficking, money laundering, illegal arms trade, attacks against Colombian armed forces and even went so far as to allege the Chavez government “squashes its opposition”, “represses freedom of expression”, “insults other governments” and “violates principles of democracy”.

At the same time, Hoyos said his government would be unwilling to listen to or respond to any accusations, insults or offenses made by the Venezuelan government.

Colombia’s position is an echo of Washington’s, which has accused Venezuela of harboring and providing refuge to members of the FARC during the past seven years. But, the US government has also failed to present any evidence to back such claims, and often makes contradictory statements, which appear to confirm the lack of solid proof.

In March 2010, US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) chief General Douglas Fraser said that he had seen no evidence of any links between Venezuela and the FARC. “We have not seen any connections specifically that I can verify where there has been a direct government-to-terrorist connection”, declared Fraser during a hearing before the US Senate Armed Forces Committee.
However, the following day, General Fraser contradicted himself before the press, stating, “There is indeed clear and documented historical and ongoing evidence of the linkages between the Government of Venezuela and the FARC”.

Possibly, Fraser was referring to previous governments in Venezuela, such as those of Carlos Andres Perez (1989-1993) or Rafael Caldera (1994-1998), which actually housed an office of the FARC in the presidential palace. President Chavez shut down that office when he entered the presidency in early 1999.

Or maybe General Fraser was referring to the specific requests made by two Colombian presidents, Andres Pastrana and Alvaro Uribe, for Chavez to mediate the release of hostages held by the FARC.

With full disclosure and complete authority from President Alvaro Uribe, and based on his own personal request, in September 2007, President Chavez accepted the role as mediator in order to secure the release of several hostages held by the FARC inside Colombian territory. For that reason only, Chavez met with FARC commander Ivan Marquez and assured the release of Clara Rojas and Consuelo Gonzalez in January 2008.

But otherwise, the Venezuelan government has consistently and repeatedly denied any links or support given to the FARC or any other armed, irregular group from Colombia or elsewhere.

RELATIONS BROKEN

After Colombia’s presentation before the OAS, President Chavez announced a complete rupture in relations.
“It is with tears in my heart that I announce that we will break all relations with Colombia. We have no other choice, for our dignity and our sovereignty”.

Chavez also ordered troops to secure all border areas. “I have ordered a maximum alert on our borders. Uribe is a mafioso and a liar, and is capable of anything”, he said, recalling how Uribe ordered the invasion of Ecuador’s territory in 2008 and then lied to President Rafael Correa about what had happened.

Venezuela accused Colombia of failing to resolve its own internal conflicts, including a 60-year old civil war that has negatively impacted its neighbors with violence and drug trafficking spilling over the borders. More than 4 million Colombians, fleeing the violence in their country, live in Venezuela today.

The Colombian “show” appears to be an effort to justify preemptive war against Venezuela. Last year Colombia opened its territory to seven US military bases in an agreement that the US Air Force claimed was necessary in order to conduct “full spectrum military operations” throughout South America to “combat the constant threat of anti-American governments in the region”.

Vineyard of the Saker has an important blog post on “My love-hate relationship with Marxists” – I identify with much of what he writes in this post, especially regarding how Marxists (and the North American left in general) relate (or rather do not relate, or understand) religion – especially Islam – and the role Islam plays in authentic liberation struggles amongst Muslims. I also agree with him on his assessment of the contemporary Latin American left movements, that do appear to be qualitatively different than their predecessors, in that they are not out to denigrate the people’s religious values, but are more interested in correcting the manipulation of religion by the oligarchies.

Many Marxists have also supported the “Gucci Revolution” in Iran only because they perceived the power of “the mullahs” (as they would put it) as being “reactionary” and “theocratic” (hence – very bad). Such Marxists have never read Ayatollah Khomenei, they know nothing of the progressive reforms introduced by the Islamic Revolution in Iran and they are oblivious to the fact that the leaders of the “Gucci Revolution” were representing the reactionary multi-millionaire and bourgeois classes of Tehran. For some mysterious reason, most Marxists when looking at Iran completely forgot about class interest and class warfare. That is what ideological blindness does to them. If religion is reactionary, then the mullahs are bad, and any movement which attempts to overthrow the Islamic Republic (which is what he “Gucci Revolution” was all about, of course) is worthy of support, even if it is CIA sponsored.

In all fairness, I have to admit that the new generation of Marxists is changing, at least in Latin America where leaders like Chavez or even Castro have considerably toned down their opposition to religion. I have some very real hope that the new “Bolivarian Socialism” or “Bolivarianism” will resolutely turn away from the deep errors of 20th century “classical” Marxism and, in the words of Hugo Chavez, “a new type of socialism, a humanist one, which puts humans and not machines or the state ahead of everything”. Hopefully, this new type of socialism will, unlike Leninism and Trotskysm, value each individual life and never use terror. And hopefully this new type of socialism will accept and embrace the diversity of human spirituality and not designate any religion as the class enemy. Such a new socialism will be able to fully integrate the Marxist, Leninist and Trotskyst analysis and critique of the Capitalist system and ideology, but will reject their methods and prescriptions. After all, a “progressive” must – by definition – learn from past mistakes and yearn for a new, better, way.

Eva Golinger reports on US intervention in Venezuela and funding of a fraudulent press:

Documents reveal multimillion-dollar funding to journalists and media in Venezuela

US State Department documents declassified under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) evidence more than $4 million USD in funding to journalists and private media in Venezuela during the last three years. This funding is part of the more than $40 million USD international agencies are investing annually in anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela in an attempt to provoke regime change

The funding has been channeled directly by the State Department through three US agencies: Panamerican Development Foundation (PADF), Freedom House, and the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

Press TV has had some interesting programs that are available on their YouTube channel – check out Shahram Amiri’s interview, and A short history of sanctions against Iran. Click here for Press TV’s YouTube channel

via Postcards from the Revolution

Eva Golinger

A revealing report published in May 2010 by the FRIDE Institute, a Spanish think tank, prepared with funding from the World Movement for Democracy (a project of the National Endowment for Democracy “NED”), has disclosed that international agencies are funding the Venezuelan opposition with a whopping $40-50 million USD annually.

This exhorbitant amount of financing well exceeds the approximately $15 million USD previously believed to have been channeled to Venezuelan opposition groups via the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the NED.
According to the FRIDE report, which analyzes the impact of this funding in Venezuela, and concludes that more donations are necessary to support the “democratic opposition” to President Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, the multi-million dollar funds are exclusively directed towards political activities in the polarized South American nation. A large majority of the $40-50 million USD, donated by US and European agencies and foundations, is given to the right wing opposition political parties, Primero Justicia (First Justice), Un Nuevo Tiempo (A New Time) and COPEI (Christian Democrat ultra-conservative party), as well as to a dozen or so NGOs, student groups and media organizations.

In the FRIDE report, the Venezuelan government is classified as “semi-authoritarian”, which is a term used frequently by the NED and another US donor to Venezuelan opposition groups, Freedom House, to describe the Chavez administration. The report even goes so far as to indicate that in Venezuela, “Elections are the main link between democracy and dictatorship”. As a result, the international funds provided to political groups in Venezuela are destined to fight against the government of Hugo Chavez in order to “restore representative democracy” and return a more US-friendly government to power.

The authors of the revealing report recognize that “international assistance” for political groups in Venezuela did not begin until 2002, after the Chavez government began implementing a series of major reforms. “The presence of large international donors engaged in democracy promotion, particularly the donors based in the US (including the Carter Center, the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the Open Society Institute (OSI), the Pan American Development Foundation (PADF), USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and multilateral institutions (OAS and EC) is closely linked to the Chavez presidency…Their political engagement began in the aftermath of the new Bolivarian Constitution, approved by popular consultation in 1999, which was the starting point of Chavez’s Revolution and Socialism of the 21st Century…Many civil society organizations emerged in 2002 – the year of the attempted coup…”

According to the FRIDE document, “Foreign democracy assistance is mainly channelled through 10-12 small institutions, all of them with offices in Caracas. New political actors, such as the students’ movement or other groups, have rather sporadically been addressed by donors, mainly from the US”. In recent years, an opposition movement has emerged from the universities, backed by Washington primarily, but also by some European foundations, particularly from Spain. These student and youth groups have attempted to project a “fresh” image of the tarred traditional political parties that ruled the country throughout the latter half of the twentieth century and were largely viewed as corrupt and elitist.

But by receiving mass amounts of foreign funding and aid for their anti-Chavez political activities, the student and youth groups have demonstrated that their priorities and actions are directed by external forces, which in turn has caused for a loss of their credibility and has confirmed accusations that they are “agents” of the US government.

US: MAIN DONOR

US agencies are the principal donors to political groups in Venezuela, with annual funds of about $6 million USD. The FRIDE report confirms that this multi-million dollar aid is a result of US efforts to undermine the Chavez presidency. “Until very recently, the United States did not have a prominent role in democracy assistance to Venezuela. When US engagement began under the Chavez government, its political profile consisted of supporting democratic NGOs and opposition parties”.

US funds are channeled to opposition groups in Venezuela through the following organizations, Development Alternatives, Inc DAI (since 2002), the Pan-American Development Foundation PADF (since 2005), the International Republican Institute IRI (since 2002), the National Democratic Institute NDI (since 2002), Freedom House (since 2004), USAID (since 2002), NED and the Open Society Institute (since 2006).

Declassified documents obtained under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests regarding the activities of these agencies in Venezuela have revealed that their multi-million dollar funding has largely gone towards promoting anti-democratic activities, such as the April 2002 coup d’etat against the Chavez government, and subsequent strikes, destabilization attempts and economic sabotage. The foreign funding has also gone to support the opposition electoral campaigns over the past eight years, including in-kind aid to train and strengthen political parties, help design elections and communications strategies and even to develop political platforms and agendas for opposition groups. This level of support goes well beyond mere donations and evidences a direct meddling in Venezuela’s domestic affairs.

EUROPE

But, not only are US agencies providing the millions to keep the Venezuelan opposition alive and feed the political conflict in Venezuela. The FRIDE report reveals that the European Commission is channelling between 6-7 million Euros annually to opposition political parties and NGOs in the South American nation. Although some of the EC’s work is done with Venezuelan government entities on a local level (infrastructure development), the majority is going to “civil society organizations” and “human rights” NGOs.

Additionally, the FRIDE report exposes the EC for serving as a “channel” for the “triangularization” of US funding to groups in Venezuela, in order to avoid the stain of Washington on the Venezuelan organizations receiving foreign aid for political activities.

Several German foundations, including the Konrad Adenauer Foundation (KAS) and Friedrich Ebert Foundation (ILDIS-FES) are providing direct funding to political parties in Venezuela. Konrad Adenauer invests about 500,000 Euros annually in projects with the right-wing parties COPEI and Primero Justicia, and has a 70,000 Euros annual commitment to fund programs at the conservative Catholic University Andrés Bello (UCAB), a hotbed of opposition student groups.

The governments of Canada and Spain are also funding political opposition groups and programs in Venezuela, though with a much lower profile, so as not to affect diplomatic relations.

The FRIDE report, which admits that a majority of the NGO’s receiving the multi-million dollar funding are actually “virtual organizations with no offices or staff”, also reveals that the international funders are evading and violating Venezuelan laws.
Because Venezuela has currency controls, so as to prevent large amounts of capital flight, there are restrictions on the flow of foreign currency in and out of the country. Additionally, the Venezuelan currency, the Bolívar has a fixed rate set by the State, although a large parallel, or “black market” exists for illegal trading. The FRIDE report confirms that several international agencies, particularly those from the US, are exchanging currency on the illegal market, in clear violation of Venezuelan law. “…An additional problem for civil society organizations has been the ‘double currency’: even after the devaluation of the Bolívar, the unofficial exchange rate is higher than the official one…Some donors have solved this problem by paying in hard currency, by using foreign bank accounts, or by applying a semi-official exchange rate…”

The FRIDE report, titled, “Assessing Democracy Assistance: Venezuela”, is part of a series of studies conducted in 14 nations where international agencies are actively involved in funding political groups favorable to US policies. In addition to Venezuela, other case studies were conducted in Belarus, China, Georgia, Egypt, Ukraine, Nigeria, Bosnia, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Morocco, Yemen and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Mysteriously, the report on Venezuela, and any evidence of its existence, disappeared from the FRIDE website after this author referred to it in a prior Spanish-language article. Nonetheless, it can now be viewed here (pdf)

Eva Golinger, winner of Mexico’s 2009 International Journalism Award, is a Venezuela-based attorney and author. Her first book, The Chavez Code, which exposes US involvement in the 2002 coup in Venezuela, has been published in six languages and is currently being made into a feature film.

Instituto de Bush Promueve Guerra Cibernética Contra Venezuela, Cuba, Irán y Rusia por Eva Golinger

Eva Golinger discusses soft attempts at destabilization of the Bolivarian Revolution, and the involvement of US government supported organizations.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Following are the 60 groups that the Islamic Republic recently identified as those involved in the US’s soft/psyop/counter-revolution operations.

This is an invaluable list, and a quick web search can turn up significant important background material on these groups. For those interested in doing further research, the web site: http://www.sourcewatch.org/ is also an excellent resource, you can learn a lot by looking at the board of directors/advisors, and checking their affiliations.

Eva Golinger has done an immense amount of superb research on some of these groups, and their activities in Venezuela against the Bolivarian Revolution. Check her book: The Chavez Code: Cracking US Intervention In Venezuela.

I do have some questions about some of the groups listed, they seem to be a bit too large, and it might have been better if more specific departments had been identified, eg: the entire Yale University — (Maybe they included that particular university ’cause that’s where Bush supposedly “studied” something.) I would think that Harvard U would’ve been a better candidate for this list.

It also seems to me that Iran might not need to disallow any contact with these groups. I think another, perhaps more effective, strategy would be to expose the organizations, and use the media to talk about how they work to subvert countries who have an independent (of the USA) policy. Then expose those who are working for them, and their agendas.

via:

http://www.isna.ir/ISNA/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-1467725&Lang=P

I’ll be updating this entry over the next few days with additional information on these organizations – Eva Golinger’s recent article mentions three of these groups also active in Venezuela (marked with an * in the list).

But now, four other entities share USAID’s multimillion dollar pie in Caracas: International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), Freedom House, and the PanAmerican Development Foundation (PADF). Of the 64 groups funded from 2002-2004 with approximately $5 million annually, today the OTI funds more than 533 organizations, political parties, programs and projects, mainly in opposition sectors, with an annual budget surpassing $7 million. Its presence has not only remained, but has grown. Obviously this is due to one very simple reason: the original objetive has still not been obtained; the overthrow or removal of President Hugo Chávez.

1 – Soros Foundation, or The Open Society Institute

2 – Woodrow Wilson Center

(Following from an article written in 2007 – currently the Woodrow Wilson Center’s board is filled with Obama appointees, including the current US (War) Secretary of State: Hillary Clinton)

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (sounds nice don’t it?). This “center for scholars” is, infact, a US government outfit – its trustees are all appointed by the President of the US (i.e. Bush). Infact, both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman raised major funds (over $100,000 for Bush and Co.’s electoral campaigns) . The other trustees either belong to major corporations, or, are affiliated with the US government, including the US Secretary of State: Condoleezza Rice. The president and director of this center is Lee H. Hamilton who is on Bush’s Homeland Security Advisory Council.

3 – Freedom House *

.. (a) high percentage of its funding comes from the US State Department — an average of 95% between 2000 and 2003 — its list of trustees, is a Who’s Who of neoconservatives from government, business, academia, labor, and the press.

4 – National Endowment for Democracy NED

NED received funds from the U.S. government and distributes funds to four other organizations – one created by the Republican Party, another by the Democratic Party, one created by the business community and one by the “labor” movement (N.B.: the names of these organizations have changed over time):
International Republican Institute (IRI)

National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI)
Chamber of Commerce’s Center for Private Enterprise (CIPE)
AFL-CIO’s American Center for International Labor Solidarity

The close alignment of the NEDs activities with US foreign policy interests comes as no surprise, especially when you consider the revolving doorways between the US Government and the NED Board of Directors, some of the most notable of which include:
“…former US Secretaries of State, Henry Kissinger (Nixon) and Madeleine Albright (Clinton), former US Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci (Reagan), former National Security Council Chair Zbigniew Brzezinski (Carter), former NATO Supreme Allied Command in Europe, General Wesley K. Clark (Clinton), and the current head of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz (George W. Bush). Another notable, Bill Brock, served as a US Senator, a US Trade Representative, and US Secretary of Labor, and then Chairman of the Board of NED.” [5]

What the NED does in foreign countries, through its recipient organizations the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI), would be rightly illegal in the United States. The NED injects “soft money” into the domestic elections of foreign countries in favor of one party or the other. Imagine what a couple of hundred thousand dollars will do to assist a politician or political party in a relatively poor country abroad. It is particularly Orwellian to call US manipulation of foreign elections “promoting democracy.” How would Americans feel if the Chinese arrived with millions of dollars to support certain candidates deemed friendly to China? Would this be viewed as a democratic development?

5 – National Democratic Institute NDI

This is one of the four groups that receives its funding from the US government funded NED (see above). The NDI is the Democratic Party’s imperial “democracy promotion” group (i.e. the liberal imperialists) its board of directors is chaired by the notorious Madeline Albright.

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.

- The National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI), organizations that receive funding from the U.S. State Department, are planning on sending delegations to observe the November 29 elections in Honduras, according to a statement issued by Republican Senator Richard Lugar. The IRI is a group that has supported the ouster of democratically elected presidents in Haiti and Venezuela in recent years. Both groups are apparently planning to assist with observation of the elections, despite the fact that the electoral process will be effectively controlled by thousands of military troops and police officers – the same forces who have committed innumerable human rights violations, including killings, rapes, beatings and thousands of detentions, since the June 28 coup d’etat.

6 – National Republican Institute NRI (Also active in Venezuela against President Chavez)

7 – Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe (headquarters in Warsaw) IDEE

8 – Center democratic Eastern Europe (headquarters in Warsaw) EEDC

9 – Ford Foundation

10 – Surveying Rockefeller Foundation

11 – Hoover Institution Stanford University

12 – Dutch Institute Hyvvs

13 – Mnaz England

14 – United Nations Association USA

15 – Carnegie Foundation

16 – Vyltvn Park, England

17 – organization Search for Common areas

18 – Population Council

19 – Washington Institute for Middle East issues near

20 – Aspen Institute

21 – American Institute Ayntrprayz

22 – New America Foundation

23 – Smith Richardson Foundation

24 – Germain Marshall Fund U.S. (with offices in Germany, Belgium and …)

25 – International Center for peaceful solution

26 – Memorial Foundation

27 – Yale University

28 – Center Mrdyn

29 – Foundation for Democracy in Iran

30 – International Republican Institute *

31 – National Democratic Institute *

32 – Institute of American initiative

33 – Institute for Democracy in Eastern Europe

34 – Center Kmkrsany U.S.

35 – International Center for Private Business

36 – Center for American workers, international solidarity

37 – International Center for Democracy transfer

38 – Community organization Democracy

39 – Albert Einstein Institute

The Albert Einstein Institution: Non-Violence According to the CIA

The Albert Einstein Institute and Venezuela

40 – World Movement for Democracy

41 – network of young democracy activists

42 – Department of Information and communication technologies democracy

43 – International parliamentary movement for democracy

44 – Institute of Democracy Network Search

45 – Institute of Riga

46 – Institute Brkmn

47 – Council on Foreign Relations United States

48 – Association of German foreign policy

49 – Institute Israelite Mmry

50 – Center for Democracy Studies, UK

51 – Meridian Institute

52 – Yale University, and all affiliated centers and institutes

53 – National Defense University

54 – Iran Human Rights Documentation Center Documentation

55 – Center for American Flta active in Central Asia and Caucasus

56 – Risk Committee

57 – Brookings Institute

58 – Saban Center affiliated to the Brookings

59 – Human Rights Watch

60 – New America Foundation

Via Eva Golinger’s blog

Opposition forces in Honduras, led by a US-funded NGO Grupo Paz y Democracia, have stated via CNN that a coup has not ocurred, but rather a “transition” to democracy. Martha Diaz, coordinator of the NGO, which receives USAID funding, has just declared minutes ago on CNN that “civil society” does not support President Zelaya nor his “illegal quest” to hold a non-binding referendum on a potential future constitutional reform. She justified his kidnapping, beating and removal from power as a “democratic transition”. Again, this is eerily reminiscent of the coup d’etat in Venezuela in April 2002, when so-called “civil society” along with dissident military forces kidnapped President Chávez and installed a “transition government”. The goups involved also received funding from the U.S. government, primarily via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and later from USAID as well.

The Venezuelan news report (video below – espanol) points out not only the victory of President Ahmadinejad, but also correctly discusses the class character of the vote, and the subsequent riots. The report also talks about the the psyop “color revolution” that is being promoted by the US regime affiliated “think tanks” under the guise of “democracy promotion” etc. See also Eva Golinger’s artice La “Revolución” Verde: El Guión se ha activado de nuevo: está vez en Irán.

“We call on the world to respect Iran because there are attempts to undermine the strength of the Iranian revolution,” Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said in his weekly radio and television address on Sunday.

“President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s triumph was a triumph all the way. They are trying to stain Ahmadinejad’s triumph and through that weaken the government and the Islamic revolution. I know they will not succeed,” Chavez said.

It should also be noted that President Ahmadinejad was strongly criticized by his opponents for building strong ties with the Latin – American pinkish red governments because, according to them, these countries were “far away.” This kind of thinking, of-course, was music to the ears of the imperialists, who have been irritated with Iran’s strong relationship over the past four years with Venezuela, and expanding relations with other countries in the region. Over the next few years, it would be important for the Ahmadinejad administration to not only continue building stronger ties, but to also begin student exchange programs, where younger Iranian Islamic revolutionaries can meet Bolivarian revolutionaries in Venezuela, and vice versa. This would be a far more productive form of people-people social/cultural exchange, than one involving US/Europe, and would aid in strengthening south-south solidarity.